On Friday, Dave Helling from the Kansas City Star posted an article “Meadowlarking, part two” on the Star’s Prime Buzz. About 24 hours ago I posted a reply, but it’s being held for review as possible spam. As requested by “midtown guy” on that blog, here is the response I tried to post to the Prime Buzz, which may appear there at some point.
“But he never explains why Kansas politics should be limited to Kansans.”
Dave, did you really ask that question? I’m asking for transparency on political money from Missouri interests. Missouri interests somehow know better than Kansans what is good for Kansas? I’m not saying that no Missouri money should enter Kansas politics. I am saying there is something wrong when large amounts of political money flow from Missouri into Kansas and the Star is mostly silent about the politics about that money. We have disclosure laws, but that doesn’t mean the information is printed by the Star.
There’s something wrong when some Missouri PACs can file “verified statements” in Kansas and not be put online like other Kansas PACs, yet the Star doesn’t ask about that? There is only Missouri sunshine on some Kansas PACs, yet the Star is happy when Kansans are left in the dark?
May I have access to your checkbook because anyone should have a right to your money? You won’t mind? Others from outside your household know how to spend your money better than you do? May I make other decisions for you because I think I know better than you do? People from Missouri somehow know better than Kansans what Kansans need? What if I had control over your money, but didn’t want you know, and didn’t let you know, exactly what was going on?
Why is it Missouri interests want power and control over Kansas (and especially JoCo), and want more money flowing from Kansas to Missouri, BUT without checks and balances on how the money may be spent? Why doesn’t the Star want much accountability in any proposed bistate tax or many other taxes? Where is the accountability on the bistate tax that paid for Union Station?
Let’s consider the 2004 Bistate tax proposal. A Meadowlark article reported on Aug. 8, 2004 about the huge amount, $483,055, that had been spent to promote the bistate tax. On Sept 3, helped by Google, the Kansas City Business Journal discovered the story. By Sept 13, 2004, the Star finally discovered the story. When the Star was a big bistate tax proponent, and then conceals details about the political money used to push the issue, what does that mean? Does the Star really respect its readers - or voters - when it hides such information from voters?
On Aug 1, 2004, the Meadowlark asked: “Is the Kansas City Star being a bit hypocritical about St. Louis money?” . The Star cared when St. Louis interests were trying to influence Kansas City politics. The Meadowlark asked for consistent logic from the Star: Why does the Star care so much if St. Louis interests interfere in Kansas City politics, but is mostly silent when Kansas City interests try to affect Kansas politics?
To put the figure $483,055 from Aug 2004 into context, The Aug 14, 2004 Meadowlark report showed that ALL JoCo primary spending prior to the August elections was about $609,470 for ALL State Rep and State Senate races. The money on the bistate tax was roughly as much as ALL political spending in JoCo. Kansas politics in the August primary. Kansas political power and influence was being overwhelmed by out-of-state Missouri interests, and Kansans shouldn’t care? Why the silence and delayed reporting by the Star?
The Aug 31, 2004 Meadowlark article first published the list of Kansas PACs to provide some transparency about Kansas PACs. At that time the Kansas Secretary of State charged $0.50/page for that information and was effectively hiding it from the public by the fee. Why doesn’t the Star do more to call for transparency in government? The challenge from that article: “When will the Kansas City Star report political money stories in a serious way?” What has changed now in 2008?
In March 2008 the Meadowlark published extensive lists of Kansas PACs, including rank orders by money raised, money spent, and money in the bank. A preliminary report of likely errors and omissions was published in March, yet the Kansas Ethics Commission cannot even find problems in reports from 2006 yet? Why doesn’t the Star push for more transparency and more enforcement of Ethics rules and laws?
And the 2002 Bistate tax story was even more complicated and was mostly ignored by the Star.
Dave, it’s simple: The Meadowlark goes away when the Star reports all the news instead of pushing a political agenda.
Related:
- Meadowlarking about, KC Star Prime Buzz, July 23, 2008.
Tags: Kansas City Star
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.